How disappointing. Looks like we won’t be getting an explanation today as promised. The workday is already over.
What can they even say, Viper? Seriously. What can they even say?
"Yeah, we know we built the game on RNG. Some people dupe Blades and Corvus Glaives, some people dupe Groots and Black Panthers. But you people with Groots and Black Panthers who have been mixing-and-matching FOR YEARS, take heart -- your four-stars aren't gonna be available in Act 6, so instead of being kinda screwed, you're just all the way screwed. Have fun watching your peers who already have better rosters than you because of RNG clear even more content!"
Yes but promising they’ll come up with a comprehensive statement as to why they decided it and delivering it is better than promising and not delivering. Transparent communication anyone?
Trust me, I know you're right.
I'm just really, really irritated because why does anybody even care about who brings what into a Map or Quest? Why do they even care?
We are subject to RNG. Just as many people get screwed by it as benefit from it.
Why does anybody care about how we play the game and with what characters? They literally make it so you have no way of knowing when -- or if -- you are ever going to get a character in the first place!
How disappointing. Looks like we won’t be getting an explanation today as promised. The workday is already over.
What can they even say, Viper? Seriously. What can they even say?
"Yeah, we know we built the game on RNG. Some people dupe Blades and Corvus Glaives, some people dupe Groots and Black Panthers. But you people with Groots and Black Panthers who have been mixing-and-matching FOR YEARS, take heart -- your four-stars aren't gonna be available in Act 6, so instead of being kinda screwed, you're just all the way screwed. Have fun watching your peers who already have better rosters than you because of RNG clear even more content!"
Yes but promising they’ll come up with a comprehensive statement as to why they decided it and delivering it is better than promising and not delivering. Transparent communication anyone?
Trust me, I know you're right.
I'm just really, really irritated because why does anybody even care about who brings what into a Map or Quest? Why do they even care?
We are subject to RNG. Just as many people get screwed by it as benefit from it.
Why does anybody care about how we play the game and with what characters? They literally make it so you have no way of knowing when -- or if -- you are ever going to get a character in the first place!
I know and I agree. I don’t know why they insist on making this type of restriction. If it’s a power gate they want to instill, why not make it based on Challenger Rating. I mean that was their creation to gauge how powerful champions are. A required Challenger Rating of 100 lets summoners bring in their 5/50 4* champs as well as 5* 3/45+ champs and 6* R1 champs. This would allow summoners to use champs they’ve invested in and can’t get at a higher rarity, whether by availability (SW/Thor) or just RNG bad luck. This is definitely not a good step to take with STORY (main) quest. If they want to experiment with these restrictions in different Variant back issues, they should have at it. But the main story line should be open to literally any champion you pull from a crystal.
How disappointing. Looks like we won’t be getting an explanation today as promised. The workday is already over.
What can they even say, Viper? Seriously. What can they even say?
"Yeah, we know we built the game on RNG. Some people dupe Blades and Corvus Glaives, some people dupe Groots and Black Panthers. But you people with Groots and Black Panthers who have been mixing-and-matching FOR YEARS, take heart -- your four-stars aren't gonna be available in Act 6, so instead of being kinda screwed, you're just all the way screwed. Have fun watching your peers who already have better rosters than you because of RNG clear even more content!"
Yes but promising they’ll come up with a comprehensive statement as to why they decided it and delivering it is better than promising and not delivering. Transparent communication anyone?
Trust me, I know you're right.
I'm just really, really irritated because why does anybody even care about who brings what into a Map or Quest? Why do they even care?
We are subject to RNG. Just as many people get screwed by it as benefit from it.
Why does anybody care about how we play the game and with what characters? They literally make it so you have no way of knowing when -- or if -- you are ever going to get a character in the first place!
I know and I agree. I don’t know why they insist on making this type of restriction. If it’s a power gate they want to instill, why not make it based on Challenger Rating. I mean that was their creation to gauge how powerful champions are. A required Challenger Rating of 100 lets summoners bring in their 5/50 4* champs as well as 5* 3/45+ champs and 6* R1 champs. This would allow summoners to use champs they’ve invested in and can’t get at a higher rarity, whether by availability (SW/Thor) or just RNG bad luck. This is definitely not a good step to take with STORY (main) quest. If they want to experiment with these restrictions in different Variant back issues, they should have at it. But the main story line should be open to literally any champion you pull from a crystal.
That's so obvious, it's painful to read it and think that somebody said "Yeah, we're not doing that."
5/50s are supposed to be the approximate equivalent of a 3/45.
What kind of sense does it make that, from the sound of it, you could use a 2/35 if you chose...but not a 5/50?
How disappointing. Looks like we won’t be getting an explanation today as promised. The workday is already over.
What can they even say, Viper? Seriously. What can they even say?
"Yeah, we know we built the game on RNG. Some people dupe Blades and Corvus Glaives, some people dupe Groots and Black Panthers. But you people with Groots and Black Panthers who have been mixing-and-matching FOR YEARS, take heart -- your four-stars aren't gonna be available in Act 6, so instead of being kinda screwed, you're just all the way screwed. Have fun watching your peers who already have better rosters than you because of RNG clear even more content!"
Yes but promising they’ll come up with a comprehensive statement as to why they decided it and delivering it is better than promising and not delivering. Transparent communication anyone?
Trust me, I know you're right.
I'm just really, really irritated because why does anybody even care about who brings what into a Map or Quest? Why do they even care?
We are subject to RNG. Just as many people get screwed by it as benefit from it.
Why does anybody care about how we play the game and with what characters? They literally make it so you have no way of knowing when -- or if -- you are ever going to get a character in the first place!
I know and I agree. I don’t know why they insist on making this type of restriction. If it’s a power gate they want to instill, why not make it based on Challenger Rating. I mean that was their creation to gauge how powerful champions are. A required Challenger Rating of 100 lets summoners bring in their 5/50 4* champs as well as 5* 3/45+ champs and 6* R1 champs. This would allow summoners to use champs they’ve invested in and can’t get at a higher rarity, whether by availability (SW/Thor) or just RNG bad luck. This is definitely not a good step to take with STORY (main) quest. If they want to experiment with these restrictions in different Variant back issues, they should have at it. But the main story line should be open to literally any champion you pull from a crystal.
I don't disagree with the allowance of maxed 4* champs, but challenger rating "power gate" would also exclude any low-ranked 5*. It would force the use of resources into champs the player either doesn't have or doesn't want to spend. Getting the cats to rank up a 5* champ to R3 or a 4* to R5 is relatively simple if you're looking at Act 6 but would add to the ongoing Gold shortage that seems to plague the game.
Why should I have to rank up my Antman if his sole purpose is his synergies with Ghost/Wasp? I have no intention of using him regardless of stars. Same with Magneto or Cyclops for a mutant crit team.
How disappointing. Looks like we won’t be getting an explanation today as promised. The workday is already over.
What can they even say, Viper? Seriously. What can they even say?
"Yeah, we know we built the game on RNG. Some people dupe Blades and Corvus Glaives, some people dupe Groots and Black Panthers. But you people with Groots and Black Panthers who have been mixing-and-matching FOR YEARS, take heart -- your four-stars aren't gonna be available in Act 6, so instead of being kinda screwed, you're just all the way screwed. Have fun watching your peers who already have better rosters than you because of RNG clear even more content!"
Yes but promising they’ll come up with a comprehensive statement as to why they decided it and delivering it is better than promising and not delivering. Transparent communication anyone?
Trust me, I know you're right.
I'm just really, really irritated because why does anybody even care about who brings what into a Map or Quest? Why do they even care?
We are subject to RNG. Just as many people get screwed by it as benefit from it.
Why does anybody care about how we play the game and with what characters? They literally make it so you have no way of knowing when -- or if -- you are ever going to get a character in the first place!
I know and I agree. I don’t know why they insist on making this type of restriction. If it’s a power gate they want to instill, why not make it based on Challenger Rating. I mean that was their creation to gauge how powerful champions are. A required Challenger Rating of 100 lets summoners bring in their 5/50 4* champs as well as 5* 3/45+ champs and 6* R1 champs. This would allow summoners to use champs they’ve invested in and can’t get at a higher rarity, whether by availability (SW/Thor) or just RNG bad luck. This is definitely not a good step to take with STORY (main) quest. If they want to experiment with these restrictions in different Variant back issues, they should have at it. But the main story line should be open to literally any champion you pull from a crystal.
I don't disagree with the allowance of maxed 4* champs, but challenger rating "power gate" would also exclude any low-ranked 5*. It would force the use of resources into champs the player either doesn't have or doesn't want to spend. Getting the cats to rank up a 5* champ to R3 or a 4* to R5 is relatively simple if you're looking at Act 6 but would add to the ongoing Gold shortage that seems to plague the game.
Why should I have to rank up my Antman if his sole purpose is his synergies with Ghost/Wasp? I have no intention of using him regardless of stars. Same with Magneto or Cyclops for a mutant crit team.
Synergies shouldn’t be the be all end all. They’re helpful but if you’re relying on them then it’s not good. That’s just my opinion. But for a lot of people their best champs are 4*. My mystic luck is non existent so SW is basically who I rely on when I need it. Same goes with AA. If anyone is vulnerable to him he shuts down champs better than anyone else and I don’t have him higher than a 4*. Keep in mind this is my luck on TWO accounts.
How disappointing. Looks like we won’t be getting an explanation today as promised. The workday is already over.
What can they even say, Viper? Seriously. What can they even say?
"Yeah, we know we built the game on RNG. Some people dupe Blades and Corvus Glaives, some people dupe Groots and Black Panthers. But you people with Groots and Black Panthers who have been mixing-and-matching FOR YEARS, take heart -- your four-stars aren't gonna be available in Act 6, so instead of being kinda screwed, you're just all the way screwed. Have fun watching your peers who already have better rosters than you because of RNG clear even more content!"
Yes but promising they’ll come up with a comprehensive statement as to why they decided it and delivering it is better than promising and not delivering. Transparent communication anyone?
Trust me, I know you're right.
I'm just really, really irritated because why does anybody even care about who brings what into a Map or Quest? Why do they even care?
We are subject to RNG. Just as many people get screwed by it as benefit from it.
Why does anybody care about how we play the game and with what characters? They literally make it so you have no way of knowing when -- or if -- you are ever going to get a character in the first place!
I know and I agree. I don’t know why they insist on making this type of restriction. If it’s a power gate they want to instill, why not make it based on Challenger Rating. I mean that was their creation to gauge how powerful champions are. A required Challenger Rating of 100 lets summoners bring in their 5/50 4* champs as well as 5* 3/45+ champs and 6* R1 champs. This would allow summoners to use champs they’ve invested in and can’t get at a higher rarity, whether by availability (SW/Thor) or just RNG bad luck. This is definitely not a good step to take with STORY (main) quest. If they want to experiment with these restrictions in different Variant back issues, they should have at it. But the main story line should be open to literally any champion you pull from a crystal.
I don't disagree with the allowance of maxed 4* champs, but challenger rating "power gate" would also exclude any low-ranked 5*. It would force the use of resources into champs the player either doesn't have or doesn't want to spend. Getting the cats to rank up a 5* champ to R3 or a 4* to R5 is relatively simple if you're looking at Act 6 but would add to the ongoing Gold shortage that seems to plague the game.
Why should I have to rank up my Antman if his sole purpose is his synergies with Ghost/Wasp? I have no intention of using him regardless of stars. Same with Magneto or Cyclops for a mutant crit team.
Synergies shouldn’t be the be all end all. They’re helpful but if you’re relying on them then it’s not good. That’s just my opinion. But for a lot of people their best champs are 4*. My mystic luck is non existent so SW is basically who I rely on when I need it. Same goes with AA. If anyone is vulnerable to him he shuts down champs better than anyone else and I don’t have him higher than a 4*. Keep in mind this is my luck on TWO accounts.
See, that's where this restriction is circular and nonsensical.
OK. Say you don't want 4-stars because you feel a few too many people rely on Synergies. OK.
By that definition, by their restriction, you are saying that the characters you release are capable of clearing content without Synergies. Right? If you're making it so people can't bring a 4-star Ghost Rider to complete the Trinity or a 4-star Killmonger to complete the Unholy Trinity, OK -- but are you saying that Blade's Danger Sense for villains isn't a vital part of the character if you run up against a stacked MODOK?
Yeah, I get it -- you CAN beat that stacked MODOK. But what if he's stun immune, too? Or debuff immune? Or any other combination of nasty nodes? Let's not pretend that all of a sudden, everybody's naked Blade -- if they even have one -- is all of a sudden just as great as Danger Sense-enabled Blade
How disappointing. Looks like we won’t be getting an explanation today as promised. The workday is already over.
What can they even say, Viper? Seriously. What can they even say?
I'm moderately curious what their thought process was. There are a lot of good reasons for using progress gates like this, and a lot of bad ones (at least in my opinion). But regardless of what their thought process was, explaining it won't likely convince anyone who thinks this is a bad idea to change their minds. That's not what an explanation is even supposed to do.
How disappointing. Looks like we won’t be getting an explanation today as promised. The workday is already over.
What can they even say, Viper? Seriously. What can they even say?
"Yeah, we know we built the game on RNG. Some people dupe Blades and Corvus Glaives, some people dupe Groots and Black Panthers. But you people with Groots and Black Panthers who have been mixing-and-matching FOR YEARS, take heart -- your four-stars aren't gonna be available in Act 6, so instead of being kinda screwed, you're just all the way screwed. Have fun watching your peers who already have better rosters than you because of RNG clear even more content!"
Yes but promising they’ll come up with a comprehensive statement as to why they decided it and delivering it is better than promising and not delivering. Transparent communication anyone?
Trust me, I know you're right.
I'm just really, really irritated because why does anybody even care about who brings what into a Map or Quest? Why do they even care?
We are subject to RNG. Just as many people get screwed by it as benefit from it.
Why does anybody care about how we play the game and with what characters? They literally make it so you have no way of knowing when -- or if -- you are ever going to get a character in the first place!
I know and I agree. I don’t know why they insist on making this type of restriction. If it’s a power gate they want to instill, why not make it based on Challenger Rating. I mean that was their creation to gauge how powerful champions are. A required Challenger Rating of 100 lets summoners bring in their 5/50 4* champs as well as 5* 3/45+ champs and 6* R1 champs. This would allow summoners to use champs they’ve invested in and can’t get at a higher rarity, whether by availability (SW/Thor) or just RNG bad luck. This is definitely not a good step to take with STORY (main) quest. If they want to experiment with these restrictions in different Variant back issues, they should have at it. But the main story line should be open to literally any champion you pull from a crystal.
I don't disagree with the allowance of maxed 4* champs, but challenger rating "power gate" would also exclude any low-ranked 5*. It would force the use of resources into champs the player either doesn't have or doesn't want to spend. Getting the cats to rank up a 5* champ to R3 or a 4* to R5 is relatively simple if you're looking at Act 6 but would add to the ongoing Gold shortage that seems to plague the game.
Why should I have to rank up my Antman if his sole purpose is his synergies with Ghost/Wasp? I have no intention of using him regardless of stars. Same with Magneto or Cyclops for a mutant crit team.
Synergies shouldn’t be the be all end all. They’re helpful but if you’re relying on them then it’s not good. That’s just my opinion. But for a lot of people their best champs are 4*. My mystic luck is non existent so SW is basically who I rely on when I need it. Same goes with AA. If anyone is vulnerable to him he shuts down champs better than anyone else and I don’t have him higher than a 4*. Keep in mind this is my luck on TWO accounts.
Completely agree. I only have a couple top-tier champs as 5*, but have almost all of them as maxed 4*. I'd love to be able to use AA, Medusa, Spark, Sabretooth, Void, Scarlet, Hype, Corvus, or Ghost.
Honestly, to me it seems that Kabam may simply be tired of seeing YouTube videos of players cheesing their way through content with 3* and 4* champs.
OK. Say you don't want 4-stars because you feel a few too many people rely on Synergies. OK.
I'm actually kind of worried they are going to say something dumb like this to justify the progress gate. That is not a description of a progress gate: this is a high tier content balancing restriction. A progress gate isn't designed to directly address game imbalances. It is, and this is ultimately what makes them difficult to justify, less about game balance and game mechanics and more about progress curves and player segregation.
At the end of the day, there's a lot of discussion and various factors that can go into deciding *where* to place a content gate precisely, like barring players lower than level 40 from entering certain content. But if people think that there's something special about level 40 that *demanded* a progress gate, that's completely wrong. The decision to make a gate comes *first* and then the how and where comes second. First the devs decide to make a gate, and then they decide once that decision is made, where's a reasonable place to put it.
The 5* gate is there for one reason only: to divide the game into two parts: the part where you can use anything, and the part that starts at 5-star and up. It is an artificial hurdle that you can only cross by building up high-tier roster. Of all the ways to mark progress in the game, player skill, resource management, roster building - it is roster building that is the most "solid" gate that can be molded by the reward system and monitored through datamining.
I'm not saying the gate is perfect, and I'm not saying I would have implemented it in the same way had I done it at all. But if you asked me prior to Act 6 coming along if something like this was coming eventually, I'd have said probably yes, and I would have guessed probably with Act 7. Reason being, since Act 6 represents the end of the Elder's arc, there's a conceptual boundary to implement such a gate.
But in general, these kinds of gates aren't put in for granular reasons like the devs don't want players to use certain things or do certain things. It isn't about what you can't do, it is about what you have to do to get through the gate.
It is a legitimate question to ask, if what's being left behind is reasonable. I'm not trying to suggest that players complaining about the gate don't have any justification to do so. I'm simply saying I don't think (although I could be wrong) that Kabam intended to stop all these things from happening, rather the gate is focused on what has to happen to get through it instead. And if they say otherwise, they are a) crazy and b) setting themselves up for an unwinnable and unnecessary fight.
Thank you all for the discussion on this topic. There’s been a lot of constructive feedback and thoughts, and it’s been valuable to us for considerations and internal discussion. We wanted to be clearer with our intentions, and better clarify why we want to do this and how it aligns with our past direction in the game.
This is not the first time we’ve hard-gated something behind a form of progression. We use gates liberally, oftentimes to prevent players from having frustrating experiences in content beyond their capabilities, but also because we’re game developers and we have some intended play experiences in mind that we--through both iteration and personal gameplay experience--believe smooth out the ride and make the whole thing as enjoyable as possible.
At level 50-60, it's easy to forget that for much of an early player’s experience they are bumping into padlock icons all over the quests menu:
- A multitude of our arenas cannot be played without specific Champion rarities, and to be competitive requires a lot of them. - Normal and Heroic difficulty event quests are locked behind levels 12 and 25, respectively. - Master was, for a long time, gated monthly behind the 100% exploration of its Heroic counterpart. - Uncollected difficulty requires not only reaching level 40, but completion of Act 5, Chapter 2. - Even entering Beginner asks you to be level 6!
And this is just looking at the monthly event quests. Dungeons need you to have a sizeable count of certain rarities before you can access the very same ones. Side Quests follow similar locking mechanics to the Monthly Events, and we’ve used gating methods both inter-quest (Dimensional Rifts and their shards) and more explicit (Danger Rooms rarity requirements, the current Recon Missions) to craft a specifically targeted experience or to more tightly tune the content we’re making.
On the topic of tuning, that is our goal when using more stringent requirements in quests. Back Issues #1 used this explicitly with the Class requirements; we did this so we could build areas in each quest where lesser-used Champions could stand out--Hawkeye’s power drain capabilities in Chapter 1, Quest 1, for example--and be important for strategy where they normally would not. We’re aiming to do similar things in Back Issues #2, with a different approach. (More on that soon!)
One reason we do this is because of how progression changes over time. Once you’ve achieved Level 60, we lose a numerical value of your time and experience in the game. The gap between a fresh 60 and a veteran 60 can be massive, just like in many other MMO games. One of the best ways we have to continue using those gates as both protective and progression measure is targeting the baseline strength and breadth of your roster.
Act 6 (and other content) is built with specific challenges in mind. The requirement of 5 and 6-Stars is a broader application of the idea, but it allows us to build a more tightly-constructed experience around a more specific box of playstyles. Making one-size fits all content for an immense player toolbox can lead to things being more watered down and general, rather than the specific moments we can make when we know the lower and upper limits of each player as a matter of fact.
Lastly, this is permanent content. When we place strict requirements on a Side Quest, it’s a gold rush; there’s only ~30 days to build or enhance a team for the quest in question, and it can be a real crunch to get it done. (I myself am going to have a hell of a time with the Avengers leg of the Recon Missions.) Act 6 is going to be around forever. If you can’t get into it right away, that’s alright. It’ll wait for you!
Again I appreciate the discussion around this, and when we say we’re taking your feedback we mean it. When there are lots of opinions and discourse around a topic like this, we take it seriously. I’ve already had two meetings today to chat about it with a variety of teams. I hope my points better explain our stance on gating content, and why we feel comfortable doing it here in the way we are.
Honestly, to me it seems that Kabam may simply be tired of seeing YouTube videos of players cheesing their way through content with 3* and 4* champs.
Why do they care about that? Not everyone has the same skill with those 3*/4* champs, and it still takes skill.
It isn't a walk in the park.
I'm talking about things like walking through Variant 1.1 with a 3/30 Gambit or beating an Uncollected boss with a 3* Ronan because they can stun lock.
Thank you all for the discussion on this topic. There’s been a lot of constructive feedback and thoughts, and it’s been valuable to us for considerations and internal discussion. We wanted to be clearer with our intentions, and better clarify why we want to do this and how it aligns with our past direction in the game.
This is not the first time we’ve hard-gated something behind a form of progression. We use gates liberally, oftentimes to prevent players from having frustrating experiences in content beyond their capabilities, but also because we’re game developers and we have some intended play experiences in mind that we--through both iteration and personal gameplay experience--believe smooth out the ride and make the whole thing as enjoyable as possible.
At level 50-60, it's easy to forget that for much of an early player’s experience they are bumping into padlock icons all over the quests menu:
- A multitude of our arenas cannot be played without specific Champion rarities, and to be competitive requires a lot of them. - Normal and Heroic difficulty event quests are locked behind levels 12 and 25, respectively. - Master was, for a long time, gated monthly behind the 100% exploration of its Heroic counterpart. - Uncollected difficulty requires not only reaching level 40, but completion of Act 5, Chapter 2. - Even entering Beginner asks you to be level 6!
And this is just looking at the monthly event quests. Dungeons need you to have a sizeable count of certain rarities before you can access the very same ones. Side Quests follow similar locking mechanics to the Monthly Events, and we’ve used gating methods both inter-quest (Dimensional Rifts and their shards) and more explicit (Danger Rooms rarity requirements, the current Recon Missions) to craft a specifically targeted experience or to more tightly tune the content we’re making.
On the topic of tuning, that is our goal when using more stringent requirements in quests. Back Issues #1 used this explicitly with the Class requirements; we did this so we could build areas in each quest where lesser-used Champions could stand out--Hawkeye’s power drain capabilities in Chapter 1, Quest 1, for example--and be important for strategy where they normally would not. We’re aiming to do similar things in Back Issues #2, with a different approach. (More on that soon!)
One reason we do this is because of how progression changes over time. Once you’ve achieved Level 60, we lose a numerical value of your time and experience in the game. The gap between a fresh 60 and a veteran 60 can be massive, just like in many other MMO games. One of the best ways we have to continue using those gates as both protective and progression measure is targeting the baseline strength and breadth of your roster.
Act 6 (and other content) is built with specific challenges in mind. The requirement of 5 and 6-Stars is a broader application of the idea, but it allows us to build a more tightly-constructed experience around a more specific box of playstyles. Making one-size fits all content for an immense player toolbox can lead to things being more watered down and general, rather than the specific moments we can make when we know the lower and upper limits of each player as a matter of fact.
Lastly, this is permanent content. When we place strict requirements on a Side Quest, it’s a gold rush; there’s only ~30 days to build or enhance a team for the quest in question, and it can be a real crunch to get it done. (I myself am going to have a hell of a time with the Avengers leg of the Recon Missions.) Act 6 is going to be around forever. If you can’t get into it right away, that’s alright. It’ll wait for you!
Again I appreciate the discussion around this, and when we say we’re taking your feedback we mean it. When there are lots of opinions and discourse around a topic like this, we take it seriously. I’ve already had two meetings today to chat about it with a variety of teams. I hope my points better explain our stance on gating content, and why we feel comfortable doing it here in the way we are.
i get exactly everything you are saying but is 4* gates really the right way? was the challenger rating suggestion we saw before not a better and more practical idea?
the problem people have is not the fact it is gated. just the way in which it has been decided to gate it.
This content is made for end-end game players with a deep deep roster of 5/6*s. Those early Uncollected players, you’re not at that stage yet, so take your time and build your rosters. The content is there.
Why no 4*s allowed? My only 6* is trash and i have only a few good 5*s
Then you are not yet ready young grasshopper
Translation. Your luck is bad so therefore you don't get to do the new content. Sorry, if you want to do act 6, you have to spend way more money on either FGMCs or on potions trying to use the crappy 5* champs you have.
Thank you all for the discussion on this topic. There’s been a lot of constructive feedback and thoughts, and it’s been valuable to us for considerations and internal discussion. We wanted to be clearer with our intentions, and better clarify why we want to do this and how it aligns with our past direction in the game.
This is not the first time we’ve hard-gated something behind a form of progression. We use gates liberally, oftentimes to prevent players from having frustrating experiences in content beyond their capabilities, but also because we’re game developers and we have some intended play experiences in mind that we--through both iteration and personal gameplay experience--believe smooth out the ride and make the whole thing as enjoyable as possible.
At level 50-60, it's easy to forget that for much of an early player’s experience they are bumping into padlock icons all over the quests menu:
- A multitude of our arenas cannot be played without specific Champion rarities, and to be competitive requires a lot of them. - Normal and Heroic difficulty event quests are locked behind levels 12 and 25, respectively. - Master was, for a long time, gated monthly behind the 100% exploration of its Heroic counterpart. - Uncollected difficulty requires not only reaching level 40, but completion of Act 5, Chapter 2. - Even entering Beginner asks you to be level 6!
And this is just looking at the monthly event quests. Dungeons need you to have a sizeable count of certain rarities before you can access the very same ones. Side Quests follow similar locking mechanics to the Monthly Events, and we’ve used gating methods both inter-quest (Dimensional Rifts and their shards) and more explicit (Danger Rooms rarity requirements, the current Recon Missions) to craft a specifically targeted experience or to more tightly tune the content we’re making.
On the topic of tuning, that is our goal when using more stringent requirements in quests. Back Issues #1 used this explicitly with the Class requirements; we did this so we could build areas in each quest where lesser-used Champions could stand out--Hawkeye’s power drain capabilities in Chapter 1, Quest 1, for example--and be important for strategy where they normally would not. We’re aiming to do similar things in Back Issues #2, with a different approach. (More on that soon!)
One reason we do this is because of how progression changes over time. Once you’ve achieved Level 60, we lose a numerical value of your time and experience in the game. The gap between a fresh 60 and a veteran 60 can be massive, just like in many other MMO games. One of the best ways we have to continue using those gates as both protective and progression measure is targeting the baseline strength and breadth of your roster.
Act 6 (and other content) is built with specific challenges in mind. The requirement of 5 and 6-Stars is a broader application of the idea, but it allows us to build a more tightly-constructed experience around a more specific box of playstyles. Making one-size fits all content for an immense player toolbox can lead to things being more watered down and general, rather than the specific moments we can make when we know the lower and upper limits of each player as a matter of fact.
Lastly, this is permanent content. When we place strict requirements on a Side Quest, it’s a gold rush; there’s only ~30 days to build or enhance a team for the quest in question, and it can be a real crunch to get it done. (I myself am going to have a hell of a time with the Avengers leg of the Recon Missions.) Act 6 is going to be around forever. If you can’t get into it right away, that’s alright. It’ll wait for you!
Again I appreciate the discussion around this, and when we say we’re taking your feedback we mean it. When there are lots of opinions and discourse around a topic like this, we take it seriously. I’ve already had two meetings today to chat about it with a variety of teams. I hope my points better explain our stance on gating content, and why we feel comfortable doing it here in the way we are.
i get exactly everything you are saying but is 4* gates really the right way? was the challenger rating suggestion we saw before not a better and more practical idea?
the problem people have is not the fact it is gated. just the way in which it has been decided to gate it.
If the gates were put in with challenge rating rather than star rating, they would almost certainly have been put in at CR110, not CR100. The 5*/6* gate is almost certainly a compromise between higher tier and rank up necessities. With the gate at 5*/6*, you can still use 5* champions that aren't ranked up for things like synergies, and you can use specialty champs that are still strong enough at lower ranks. With the gate at CR110, you can't. If you set the gate to CR100, that essentially opens the floodgates to all 4* champs, and the gate ceases to be a strong enough gate to be meaningful.
Nice spin on how you try to make this seem like you’re looking out for the player base and not having challengers who aren’t prepared go into this content. Fact is, they made it past act 5 so they have a roster to support entry into act 6.
Why should my 5/50 be restricted while another summoner’s 1/35 of the same champ be accepted? A R5 4* will out perform a R1 5* in all aspects.
My roster is advanced enough where this 4* restriction will have little to no impact, but I still disagree with this arbitrary cash grab of a move.
If this was your intent all along, you should have provided more than a week’s notice. Many people would not have spent money and time in arena or crystals/offers if this change in the game was TRANSPARENT.
The biggest issue with gating it with 5/6* champs is that the player base is even more at the mercy of RNG. Drooped shared a screenshot of his qualifying champs. I'm also free to play with over 75+ crystals opened but instead of Domino, Spark, Cap America IW, Killmonger, AA, IWIM, Ultron, Symb Supreme as 5* I was only "blessed" to pull them as 4*.
Plain and simple, this is an RNG gate. Either you're lucky and can play now, or you're stuck for however long it takes to *someday* pull something useful... Or you buy your way through with sub-standard and outdated garbage.
As much as I disagree with the 5/6* champ requirement, I’ll just roll with it. Puts everyone on equal footing anyway. If you can’t use your 4*s and I can’t use mine, then it’s the same for you and me. No biggie.
100% wrong.
If you lucked out and pulled a 5* or 6* Wasp then you get to use your r5 Ghost to her best potential. I can't because Kabam hasn't seen fit to award me one.
As much as I disagree with the 5/6* champ requirement, I’ll just roll with it. Puts everyone on equal footing anyway. If you can’t use your 4*s and I can’t use mine, then it’s the same for you and me. No biggie.
100% wrong.
If you lucked out and pulled a 5* or 6* Wasp then you get to use your r5 Ghost to her best potential. I can't because Kabam hasn't seen fit to award me one.
The format of new synergies are not what they used to be. If you pull a 4* Wasp, you can use Ghost to her best potential. However, you can’t use Ghost to her best potential in Act 6, which is one area of the game.
The biggest issue with gating it with 5/6* champs is that the player base is even more at the mercy of RNG. Drooped shared a screenshot of his qualifying champs. I'm also free to play with over 75+ crystals opened but instead of Domino, Spark, Cap America IW, Killmonger, AA, IWIM, Ultron, Symb Supreme as 5* I was only "blessed" to pull them as 4*.
Plain and simple, this is an RNG gate. Either you're lucky and can play now, or you're stuck for however long it takes to *someday* pull something useful... Or you buy your way through with sub-standard and outdated garbage.
I think this is the same way for Variant, as Variant requires very specific champions to get through the fun and interactive part of the content.
I didn’t see a single good reason that justifies banning 4*s. It was all the expected rhetoric that boils down to.....money.
Apparently you didn't read the explanation then. Nothing mentioned had to do with money at all. It was a thorough explanation as to why they felt it was best to gate progress at that stage. It may not be what people want, but you can't say the explanation wasn't sufficient.
Thank you all for the discussion on this topic. There’s been a lot of constructive feedback and thoughts, and it’s been valuable to us for considerations and internal discussion. We wanted to be clearer with our intentions, and better clarify why we want to do this and how it aligns with our past direction in the game.
This is not the first time we’ve hard-gated something behind a form of progression. We use gates liberally, oftentimes to prevent players from having frustrating experiences in content beyond their capabilities, but also because we’re game developers and we have some intended play experiences in mind that we--through both iteration and personal gameplay experience--believe smooth out the ride and make the whole thing as enjoyable as possible.
At level 50-60, it's easy to forget that for much of an early player’s experience they are bumping into padlock icons all over the quests menu:
- A multitude of our arenas cannot be played without specific Champion rarities, and to be competitive requires a lot of them. - Normal and Heroic difficulty event quests are locked behind levels 12 and 25, respectively. - Master was, for a long time, gated monthly behind the 100% exploration of its Heroic counterpart. - Uncollected difficulty requires not only reaching level 40, but completion of Act 5, Chapter 2. - Even entering Beginner asks you to be level 6!
And this is just looking at the monthly event quests. Dungeons need you to have a sizeable count of certain rarities before you can access the very same ones. Side Quests follow similar locking mechanics to the Monthly Events, and we’ve used gating methods both inter-quest (Dimensional Rifts and their shards) and more explicit (Danger Rooms rarity requirements, the current Recon Missions) to craft a specifically targeted experience or to more tightly tune the content we’re making.
On the topic of tuning, that is our goal when using more stringent requirements in quests. Back Issues #1 used this explicitly with the Class requirements; we did this so we could build areas in each quest where lesser-used Champions could stand out--Hawkeye’s power drain capabilities in Chapter 1, Quest 1, for example--and be important for strategy where they normally would not. We’re aiming to do similar things in Back Issues #2, with a different approach. (More on that soon!)
One reason we do this is because of how progression changes over time. Once you’ve achieved Level 60, we lose a numerical value of your time and experience in the game. The gap between a fresh 60 and a veteran 60 can be massive, just like in many other MMO games. One of the best ways we have to continue using those gates as both protective and progression measure is targeting the baseline strength and breadth of your roster.
Act 6 (and other content) is built with specific challenges in mind. The requirement of 5 and 6-Stars is a broader application of the idea, but it allows us to build a more tightly-constructed experience around a more specific box of playstyles. Making one-size fits all content for an immense player toolbox can lead to things being more watered down and general, rather than the specific moments we can make when we know the lower and upper limits of each player as a matter of fact.
Lastly, this is permanent content. When we place strict requirements on a Side Quest, it’s a gold rush; there’s only ~30 days to build or enhance a team for the quest in question, and it can be a real crunch to get it done. (I myself am going to have a hell of a time with the Avengers leg of the Recon Missions.) Act 6 is going to be around forever. If you can’t get into it right away, that’s alright. It’ll wait for you!
Again I appreciate the discussion around this, and when we say we’re taking your feedback we mean it. When there are lots of opinions and discourse around a topic like this, we take it seriously. I’ve already had two meetings today to chat about it with a variety of teams. I hope my points better explain our stance on gating content, and why we feel comfortable doing it here in the way we are.
A Rank 5 level 50 4 star champion has similar base stats to a Rank 3 level 45 5 star. Not to mention being stronger than a Rank 1 level 25 and a rank 2 level 35 5 star champion. A rank 5 4 star has the same challenge rating as a rank 3 5 star. Yet the gating occurring here isn't affecting the use of champions with a challenge rating of 100 or lower. This is an arbitrary restriction. If you're truly serious about it then restrict the quest to only 4/55, 5/65 and 6 star champions. At least that way you would be consistent.
I didn’t see a single good reason that justifies banning 4*s. It was all the expected rhetoric that boils down to.....money.
It sounds more or less like what I've been told in the past by other developers, including developers for games that were subscription based and had no possible way to monetize the gate. Since the basic rationale is used in situations that cannot make money, it cannot be obviously about money. What Goggy is saying would be reasonable to almost any game developer. Not all game developers would agree with the specifics, but just about all of them would agree the context described above is entirely reasonable.
1) why are you punishing players for wanting to do it now? I understand that all content is not meant for everyone but people should at least try it for themselves to see where they are lacking in order to improve.
2) if you’re going to put a hard cap on which champion rarity can enter (in this case 5 & 6*) you should make obtaining the specific champion a player wants available or give us more opportunities for 5* acquisitions aside from arena. Like @Dexman1349 stated before, the players are at the mercy of RNG. Therefore, it may take months or years even to get the champion the players will need in order to fully complete and/or explore Act 6.
Comments
I'm just really, really irritated because why does anybody even care about who brings what into a Map or Quest? Why do they even care?
We are subject to RNG. Just as many people get screwed by it as benefit from it.
Why does anybody care about how we play the game and with what characters? They literally make it so you have no way of knowing when -- or if -- you are ever going to get a character in the first place!
5/50s are supposed to be the approximate equivalent of a 3/45.
What kind of sense does it make that, from the sound of it, you could use a 2/35 if you chose...but not a 5/50?
Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous
Why should I have to rank up my Antman if his sole purpose is his synergies with Ghost/Wasp? I have no intention of using him regardless of stars. Same with Magneto or Cyclops for a mutant crit team.
OK. Say you don't want 4-stars because you feel a few too many people rely on Synergies. OK.
By that definition, by their restriction, you are saying that the characters you release are capable of clearing content without Synergies. Right? If you're making it so people can't bring a 4-star Ghost Rider to complete the Trinity or a 4-star Killmonger to complete the Unholy Trinity, OK -- but are you saying that Blade's Danger Sense for villains isn't a vital part of the character if you run up against a stacked MODOK?
Yeah, I get it -- you CAN beat that stacked MODOK. But what if he's stun immune, too? Or debuff immune? Or any other combination of nasty nodes? Let's not pretend that all of a sudden, everybody's naked Blade -- if they even have one -- is all of a sudden just as great as Danger Sense-enabled Blade
Honestly, to me it seems that Kabam may simply be tired of seeing YouTube videos of players cheesing their way through content with 3* and 4* champs.
It isn't a walk in the park.
At the end of the day, there's a lot of discussion and various factors that can go into deciding *where* to place a content gate precisely, like barring players lower than level 40 from entering certain content. But if people think that there's something special about level 40 that *demanded* a progress gate, that's completely wrong. The decision to make a gate comes *first* and then the how and where comes second. First the devs decide to make a gate, and then they decide once that decision is made, where's a reasonable place to put it.
The 5* gate is there for one reason only: to divide the game into two parts: the part where you can use anything, and the part that starts at 5-star and up. It is an artificial hurdle that you can only cross by building up high-tier roster. Of all the ways to mark progress in the game, player skill, resource management, roster building - it is roster building that is the most "solid" gate that can be molded by the reward system and monitored through datamining.
I'm not saying the gate is perfect, and I'm not saying I would have implemented it in the same way had I done it at all. But if you asked me prior to Act 6 coming along if something like this was coming eventually, I'd have said probably yes, and I would have guessed probably with Act 7. Reason being, since Act 6 represents the end of the Elder's arc, there's a conceptual boundary to implement such a gate.
But in general, these kinds of gates aren't put in for granular reasons like the devs don't want players to use certain things or do certain things. It isn't about what you can't do, it is about what you have to do to get through the gate.
It is a legitimate question to ask, if what's being left behind is reasonable. I'm not trying to suggest that players complaining about the gate don't have any justification to do so. I'm simply saying I don't think (although I could be wrong) that Kabam intended to stop all these things from happening, rather the gate is focused on what has to happen to get through it instead. And if they say otherwise, they are a) crazy and b) setting themselves up for an unwinnable and unnecessary fight.
Thank you all for the discussion on this topic. There’s been a lot of constructive feedback and thoughts, and it’s been valuable to us for considerations and internal discussion. We wanted to be clearer with our intentions, and better clarify why we want to do this and how it aligns with our past direction in the game.
This is not the first time we’ve hard-gated something behind a form of progression. We use gates liberally, oftentimes to prevent players from having frustrating experiences in content beyond their capabilities, but also because we’re game developers and we have some intended play experiences in mind that we--through both iteration and personal gameplay experience--believe smooth out the ride and make the whole thing as enjoyable as possible.
At level 50-60, it's easy to forget that for much of an early player’s experience they are bumping into padlock icons all over the quests menu:
- A multitude of our arenas cannot be played without specific Champion rarities, and to be competitive requires a lot of them.
- Normal and Heroic difficulty event quests are locked behind levels 12 and 25, respectively.
- Master was, for a long time, gated monthly behind the 100% exploration of its Heroic counterpart.
- Uncollected difficulty requires not only reaching level 40, but completion of Act 5, Chapter 2.
- Even entering Beginner asks you to be level 6!
And this is just looking at the monthly event quests. Dungeons need you to have a sizeable count of certain rarities before you can access the very same ones. Side Quests follow similar locking mechanics to the Monthly Events, and we’ve used gating methods both inter-quest (Dimensional Rifts and their shards) and more explicit (Danger Rooms rarity requirements, the current Recon Missions) to craft a specifically targeted experience or to more tightly tune the content we’re making.
On the topic of tuning, that is our goal when using more stringent requirements in quests. Back Issues #1 used this explicitly with the Class requirements; we did this so we could build areas in each quest where lesser-used Champions could stand out--Hawkeye’s power drain capabilities in Chapter 1, Quest 1, for example--and be important for strategy where they normally would not. We’re aiming to do similar things in Back Issues #2, with a different approach. (More on that soon!)
One reason we do this is because of how progression changes over time. Once you’ve achieved Level 60, we lose a numerical value of your time and experience in the game. The gap between a fresh 60 and a veteran 60 can be massive, just like in many other MMO games. One of the best ways we have to continue using those gates as both protective and progression measure is targeting the baseline strength and breadth of your roster.
Act 6 (and other content) is built with specific challenges in mind. The requirement of 5 and 6-Stars is a broader application of the idea, but it allows us to build a more tightly-constructed experience around a more specific box of playstyles. Making one-size fits all content for an immense player toolbox can lead to things being more watered down and general, rather than the specific moments we can make when we know the lower and upper limits of each player as a matter of fact.
Lastly, this is permanent content. When we place strict requirements on a Side Quest, it’s a gold rush; there’s only ~30 days to build or enhance a team for the quest in question, and it can be a real crunch to get it done. (I myself am going to have a hell of a time with the Avengers leg of the Recon Missions.) Act 6 is going to be around forever. If you can’t get into it right away, that’s alright. It’ll wait for you!
Again I appreciate the discussion around this, and when we say we’re taking your feedback we mean it. When there are lots of opinions and discourse around a topic like this, we take it seriously. I’ve already had two meetings today to chat about it with a variety of teams. I hope my points better explain our stance on gating content, and why we feel comfortable doing it here in the way we are.
but
is 4* gates really the right way?
was the challenger rating suggestion we saw before not a better and more practical idea?
the problem people have is not the fact it is gated.
just the way in which it has been decided to gate it.
This content is made for end-end game players with a deep deep roster of 5/6*s. Those early Uncollected players, you’re not at that stage yet, so take your time and build your rosters. The content is there.
Why should my 5/50 be restricted while another summoner’s 1/35 of the same champ be accepted? A R5 4* will out perform a R1 5* in all aspects.
My roster is advanced enough where this 4* restriction will have little to no impact, but I still disagree with this arbitrary cash grab of a move.
If this was your intent all along, you should have provided more than a week’s notice. Many people would not have spent money and time in arena or crystals/offers if this change in the game was TRANSPARENT.
Plain and simple, this is an RNG gate. Either you're lucky and can play now, or you're stuck for however long it takes to *someday* pull something useful... Or you buy your way through with sub-standard and outdated garbage.
If you lucked out and pulled a 5* or 6* Wasp then you get to use your r5 Ghost to her best potential. I can't because Kabam hasn't seen fit to award me one.
I think this is the same way for Variant, as Variant requires very specific champions to get through the fun and interactive part of the content.
2) if you’re going to put a hard cap on which champion rarity can enter (in this case 5 & 6*) you should make obtaining the specific champion a player wants available or give us more opportunities for 5* acquisitions aside from arena. Like @Dexman1349 stated before, the players are at the mercy of RNG. Therefore, it may take months or years even to get the champion the players will need in order to fully complete and/or explore Act 6.